Global environmental politics(Financial Times,18October 2006). Some north-eastern states are attempting
toregulate regional greenhouse gas emissions, by limiting emissions from
power stations (Schreurs 2004 : 225). There are signs that the flooding of
NewOrleans in 2005, which many have (rightly or wrongly) linked to cli-
mate change, has led to a shift in domestic public opinion.^7 Indeed, this
may be evident in President Bush’s changing rhetoric on climate change, as
illustrated by his trumpeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Devel-
opment and Climate, a 2005 initiative with Australia, China, India, Japan and
South Korea, which is intended to find voluntary ways of reducing emissions
byaccelerating ‘the development and deployment of clean energy technolo-
gies’ (http://www.asiapacificpartnership.org/default.htm). Not surprisingly,
critics, such as Greenpeace, see it as a way of trying to circumvent the
Kyoto Protocol.
Asecond fundamental tension dogging negotiations has been the North–
South divide. Although the principle of ‘common but differentiated respon-
sibilities’ was enshrined in the Convention, there has been bitter disagree-
ment over what this means in practice (see below). For example, by imposing
targets only on Annex 1 countries, the US government has been able to crit-
icise the Kyoto Protocol for effectively absolving developing nations from
taking action to reduce carbon emissions. Conversely, the major developing
countries, such as China and India, have ensured that the issues of devel-
opment, sovereignty and equity have had a prominent place on the agenda.
Many disputes boil down to conflict over the transfer of financial and techno-
logical resources from North to South. There has been little disagreement
with the principle that developed countries should transfer resources to
help developing countries invest in energy-efficient technology, but putting
it into practice has thrown up many knotty problems. Developed countries
have been unwilling to put their hands in their pockets, and big private
corporations are reluctant to relinquish control of technologies without eco-
nomic or financial compensation (e.g. access to markets); hence the paucity
of firm obligations in the Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. It
is important to note that the simple North–South dichotomy does not cap-
ture the complexity of climate change politics; just as there are divisions
between developed nations over what should be done, there are also oppos-
ing interests among developing countries. For example, the Alliance of Small
Island States (whose members are particularly vulnerable to rising sea-levels
caused by climate change) has lobbied for firm targets and commitments,
whereas oil-producing states have opposed them.
Underlying both these key tensions is the familiar trade-off between eco-
nomic and environmental interests. Short-term concerns about economic
growthand development have outweighed the longer-term need to mitigate
climate change. With little visible immediate evidence of global warming
that might whip up public concern, it is all too easy for governments to
bow to producer and consumer resistance to costly remedial measures such